Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change

John C Klensin wrote:
> If one were designing the architecture de novo today, in today's 
> environment, there would be a strong case for "no MX default", but the 
> sort of situation Carl mentions would also make a strong case for 
> separate "MX-forward-path" and "MX-reverse-path" (bounces) records.
I dunno. I get leery any time the specs assume that the guy running the 
mail server and the guy running the DNS server are on speaking terms. 
I've seen too many cases (even in smallish companies) where the 
corporate mail server and DNS were run by one department, but web and 
E-mail aware applications were run by another. Typically, the latter 
group would be pre-allocated a "pool" of hostnames, A records, and PTR 
records. When they added a new server, they'd just grab the next name 
and number from the pool. If they had to differentiate in advance which 
machines sent mail, and throw MX records into the mix too, they'd never 
ship.
<csg>